Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

Our Angel's Corner archive is here.

FIRST SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE – 2016 – HELP!

(Although our first week ended well, our second has started very slowly.  So we once again must put out the call for help.  Please subscribe or donate, and make our drive successful.  The future of our work depends on it.)   

Urgent Agenda depends on subscriptions and donations to stay in business.  Without them, we'd be gone.  We are now in one of the most critical election years in modern history.  We'll be there every day, seven days a week.  It is expensive, and we ask for your backing.

You can subscribe or donate in the right-hand column under SUBSCRIPTIONS, opposite these words.  You can use PayPal or the other methods given.  We strongly recommend SENDINC, which has been a hit with our readers, and is simple to use.  Your information is secure.   If you prefer to use regular mail, let us know at service@urgentagenda.com, and we'll give you our address.

WHAT YOU RECEIVE:  Aside from the satisfaction of supporting our work, you'll receive, twice a week, an e-mailed page called "The Angel's Corner."  It contains our Forum, where subscribers and donators can write on any subject, at any reasonable length.  The Forum is unique to the internet, and is one of our most popular features.

We look forward to your joining us as subscribers or donators.

Editor's Note:  Will Stroock, the distinguished military historian and an Urgent Agenda reader, has written a fine new novel, "World War 1990 – Operation Eastern Storm."  It is part of an exciting series, and depicts a major conflict during the administration of George H.W. Bush.  I strongly recommend it.  You'll be well entertained, and you'll learn a great deal about strategy, tactics, and the men and machines of war.  Available at Amazon here for Kindle and here for paperback.

JANUARY 19,  2016

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:48 P.M. ET:

AND AGAIN – Apparent new terror attack.  From CNN:   Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) A university in the northwest of Pakistan has come under attack by armed militants, and at least seven people have been killed, with a further 20 injured, an official told CNN. It's not yet clear how many of the dead are attackers and how many are civilians but the death toll is expected to rise.  Gunfire and explosions were heard Wednesday morning local time from within Bacha Khan University in Charsadda, northwestern Pakistan.  There are still dead inside and the operation is ongoing, Bilal Faizi, a local emergency service spokesman told CNN.  The relentlessness of terror attacks is remarkable.  It seems there's one every few days.  We have a right to be alarmed, despite Obama's smug assurances that this is a small problem.  Not small for those involved.

WILL IT MATTER? –  As the whole political world knows, Sarah Palin just endorsed Donald Trump.  Palin is still a political force among evangelicals in Iowa, and it's possible her endorsement may have some meaning in that state.  Iowa will be the first state to vote.  Its caucuses are scheduled for February 1st, with Trump and Cruz neck-and-neck in most Iowa polls.  Trump is ahead in the New Hampshire primary to follow Iowa.  The key test, and a test of Palin's influence, may well come in the South Carolina primary on February 20th, where Trump, and his booster Palin, will be up against the formidable opposition of Republican Governor Nikki Haley, who has made clear her dislike of Trump.  There could be sparks. 

THE END OF HUMANITY? – From London's Daily Mail:   It won't be war, politics or poverty that eventually wipes out humanity.  According to Seth Shostak, our end will come about as a result of designer babies and artificial intelligence.  The outspoken director of the Search for extraterrestrial intelligence (Seti) Institute believes developments in these areas will lead to new 'alien' species.  We already have alien species.  Hasn't this guy ever seen a Democratic Party convention?

ROGER WHO? – From The Wrap:   Michael Moore plans to join the boycott of this year’s Academy Awards organized by Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith, the Oscar-winning filmmaker told TheWrap on Monday night.  “I absolutely support what they are doing, and I will be happy to join them,” the “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 9/11” director said in a passionate late-night phone call. “I thought about this all day, and I don’t plan to go to the show, I don’t plan to watch it and I don’t plan to go to an Oscar party."  I'm sure he'll be deeply missed, if anyone remembers who he is.

January 19, 2016        Permalink

RACE IN AMERICA – AT 11:21 A.M. ET:  This isn't what we were promised by Barack Obama.  From Rasmussen: 

Confidence in race relations in America continues to fall, with hopes for the future at their lowest level yet.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of American Adults now think race relations in this country are getting worse, up from 44% a year ago and 30% as recently as January 2014. Only 20% believe race relations are getting better, a new low that compares to 38% five years ago. Twenty-six percent (26%) say race relations are staying about the same. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Only 18% rate race relations in America today as good or excellent, unchanged from last year at this time but down from 34% two years ago. Thirty-three percent (33%) now consider race relations poor, up from 15% in 2011 and 29% last January.

Interestingly, unlike most questions related to race, there isn’t a wide difference of opinion on these questions between blacks and whites. Other minority Americans are the least pessimistic.

But blacks are much more likely than whites and other minorities to believe the United States is headed in the right direction.

COMMENT:  It is not helpful when colleges and universities do all they can to divide people along racial lines.  Nor is it helpful when the president adds to those divisions.

We'd hoped that the "first black president" would seek to heal.  That has not been the case. 

January 19, 2016        Permalink

SUPREME TROUBLE FOR OBAMA? – AT 10:51 A.M. ET:   Is the Supreme Court about to deliver a blow to Obama's blatant power grabs?  From NBC:

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to take up the Obama administration's proposed new immigration plan that could shield more than four million people from deportation.

If the court rules by this spring in favor of the White House, President Obama could begin putting the changes into effect during his final months in office. But if the administration loses, court battles could keep the program on hold for several more years.

The new policy would allow adults here illegally to remain if they have children who are US citizens or lawful permanent residents. It would also expand a program, begun four years ago, that allows young people to remain in the US if they were brought here under age 16, provided they meet educational or military service requirements.

Both changes have yet to go into effect, blocked by lower court rulings in a lawsuit brought by Texas and 25 other states. They said provisions of the new policy would allow people to get work permits and other benefits, resulting in higher costs of accommodating those who remain in the US.

Texas argued that it would be saddled with millions of dollars in additional expenses to issue drivers licenses to an estimated half a million parents who could be eligible in the state.

Lower federal courts last year agreed and put a hold on the new plan. The rulings said that because the changes were so significant, the administration should have sought public comment first. Failing to do so, they declared, was illegal.

At the heart of the case is this question: is the administration's proposal simply a change in priorities for enforcing immigration law or something more?

The justices also directed lawyers for both sides to address an additional question -- does the policy violate the Constitution's "take care" clause.

That's the provision that requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The challenger states argued in the lower courts that the policy was unconstitutional, because it failed to conform to a rigorous enforcement of immigration laws.

COMMENT:  A critical case, although the end of the Obama administration will probably have more effect on immigration policy than the Supreme Court's decision.   Immigration is one of the most divisive issues in the campaign.  Whichever way the Court decides will create an uproar.

January 19, 2016       Permalink

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT? – AT 9:41 A.M. ET:  There's a serious story making the rounds that the Obama administration wants to punish retired General David Petraeus even further.  Why do I think this story has deep implications?  From Daily Beast: 

The Pentagon is considering retroactively demoting retired Gen. David Petraeus after he admitted to giving classified information to his biographer and mistress while he was still in uniform, three people with knowledge of the matter told The Daily Beast.

The decision now rests with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, who is said to be willing to consider overruling an earlier recommendation by the Army that Petraeus not have his rank reduced. Such a demotion could cost the storied general hundreds of thousands of dollars—and deal an additional blow to his once-pristine reputation.

“The secretary is considering going in a different direction” from the Army, a defense official told The Daily Beast, because he wants to be consistent in his treatment of senior officers who engage in misconduct and to send a message that even men of Petraeus’s fame and esteemed reputation are not immune to punishment.

Pentagon spokesperson Peter Cook told The Daily Beast that Carter had requested the information ex-Army Secretary John McHugh had when he made his recommendation on the matter, before reaching a final decision. McHugh had recommended taking no action against Petraeus.

COMMENT:  Now, as Jimmy Stewart might have put it, "Just...just...just a second there."  Who else is being investigated for improper handling of classified information?  I think her name is Clinton.  Are these matters related, in some way, on a political level?

Consider:  If the administration busts Petraeus, how could it then give a pass to Clinton for the same offense?   Is Petraeus being set up by the Obamans as the example, justifying action against Clinton, if it is called for by the FBI investigation into her activities at the State Department?

I don't know the answer, but the timing here doesn't strike me as coincidental.  We have long said at Urgent Agenda that Obama would much prefer Biden, not Clinton, to succeed him.  I get the feeling that the path is being prepared.  An indictment would destroy Clinton on the spot.

January 19,  2016     Permalink

JANUARY 18,  2016

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:56 P.M. ET:

RIDICULOUS – There is now a drive to boycott the Oscars because there were no African-Americans among the actor nominees.  This is absurd.  I wonder how many pro-life Catholic women are among the nominees.  How about military veterans?  Observant Jews?  Republicans?  I can understand how people want to be "represented," but no one can demand nominations based on race.  They say the voting group in the academy is tilted toward "older white men," and that this affects nominations, but the fact is that these older white men are now drawn from the sixties generation, and they are decidedly liberal.  Suggestion for the protesters:  There's a lot of black money in show business.  How about investing some in starting film companies and studios?  Then you choose your own casting, and have a stronger presence.  That leads to more nominations.  Entrepreneurship is the key to group progress.

OH PLEASE – Grand Admiral Kerry expresses his outrage.  From The Hill:  Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday that he was outraged by the footage of U.S. sailors being apprehended at gunpoint by the Iranian military last week.  "I was very angry. I was very frustrated and angry that that was released. I raised it immediately with the Iranians," he said during an interview on CNN.  "It was not put out by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the government directly, it was put out I think by the military over there, the [Iranian Revolutionary Guard], who is opposed to what we are doing."  Gee, you think they're opposed, Admiral Kerry?  And they have the power, don't they?  In that case, why are you so damned sure this ramshackle nuclear deal is going to work?

GIGANTIC SANDERS ENDORSEMENT – Bernie pushes on!  From The Hill:   Rapper Killer Mike told reporters Sunday that he ended up supporting Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders “after smoking a joint and reading his tweets.”  The hip-hop star appeared in the spin room for the Vermont senator after Sunday night’s debate.  The rapper endorsed Sanders for president in June after the candidate cited his support for restoring the Voting Rights Act.  Killer Mike has appeared with Sanders at several stops on the campaign trail since his endorsement.   Well, I guess it's over.  Killer Mike's endorsement is good enough for me.  Time for everyone else to drop out.

January 18,  2016     Permalink

THE DEATH OF EUROPE? – AT 11:40 A.M. ET:  I'm surprised that the European crisis and descent isn't getting more attention.  Low birth rates and high immigration rates may simply doom the Europe we know, and wipe out most of European culture.  There are signs, and they aren't good.  From Reuters: 

Is this how "Europe" ends?

The Germans, founders and funders of the postwar union, shut their borders to refugees in a bid for political survival by the chancellor who let in a million migrants. And then -- why not? -- they decide to revive the Deutschmark while they're at it.

That is not the fantasy of diehard Eurosceptics but a real fear articulated at the highest levels in Berlin and Brussels.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, her ratings hit by crimes blamed on asylum seekers at New Year parties in Cologne, and EU chief executive Jean-Claude Juncker both said as much last week.

Juncker echoed Merkel in warning that the central economic achievements of the common market and the euro are at risk from incoherent, nationalistic reactions to migration and other crises. He renewed warnings that Europe is on its "last chance", even if he still hoped it was not "at the beginning of the end".

Merkel, facing trouble among her conservative supporters as much as from opponents, called Europe "vulnerable" and the fate of the euro "directly linked" to resolving the migration crisis -- highlighting the risk of at the very least serious economic turbulence if not a formal dismantling of EU institutions.

Some see that as mere scare tactics aimed at fellow Europeans by leaders with too much to lose from an EU collapse -- Greeks and Italians have been seen to be dragging their feet over controlling the bloc's Mediterranean frontier and eastern Europeans who benefit from German subsidies and manufacturing supply chain jobs have led hostility to demands that they help take in refugees.

COMMENT:  The writers of the story continue the grand illusion that the main opposition to current refugee policies is coming from extremist groups.  It is not.  It is coming from what Richard Nixon called "the silent majority" in Europe, which is silent no more.

Europe is often a mess, but this time the mess is deadly.  Europeans see around them a European Union indifferent to their concerns.  They see their culture slipping away, and under pressure from cultures living in the 10th century.  But, under the rules of multiculturalism, that must not be mentioned. 

The picture is not pretty.  Don't be shocked if American leaders soon start talking about the fading of Europe, and its replacement as a power and economic center by Asia.  I could easily see a situation, within 25 years, wherein Europe is considered irrelevant, and Chinese is made mandatory in our schools.

January 18, 2016       Permalink

ANOTHER HOSTAGE CRISIS? – AT 10:28 A.M. ET:   Three Americans have been kidnapped in Iraq.  Another legacy of our fast, incompetent pullout from that country...after securing it.  From Fox: 

A group of Americans who disappeared in Baghdad over the weekend were kidnapped from their interpreter's apartment, according to multiple Iraqi sources.

The apartment is well-known in southern Baghdad as a brothel and is subject to frequent raids by Shiite militias, including the Iran-backed Asa’ib ah al-Haqq, a police official and a building resident told The Washington Post.

"We are in very direct contact with the Iraqi authorities... there is a very full effort going to find them as soon as possible," Secretary of State John Kerry told Fox News Monday.

An Iraqi intelligence official told the Associated Press that the Americans were invited into the apartment in the neighborhood of Dora. After they were abducted, they were taken to Sadr City, at which point the official said, "all communications and contact stopped."

A spokesman for Baghdad's Joint Operations Command told The Washington Post that the three citizens were Iraqis who had acquired U.S. citizenship. A Baghdad police official said they worked as contractors at Baghdad International Airport, but did not say which country employed them.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad confirmed Sunday that "several" Americans had vanished, while the State Department said it was working with the Iraqi government to locate them.

COMMENT:  Hard to know if there are any serious international implications.  It could be just a criminal act.  But nothing in the Mideast is uncomplicated.  We'll follow this.  If there are ransom demands, with threats of execution, we could be looking at another hostage crisis.  Potential hostage takers will watch our response carefully.

January 18,  2016     Permalink

MORE ON THE DEM DEBATE – AT 9:41 A.M. ET:  Washington Post has an interesting take on why, in its view, Hillary Clinton lost last night's Democratic debate.  From Chris Cillizza at WaPo: 

The former secretary of state was, as always, solid. And, at times — like in her closing statement on the water in Flint, Mich. — she was outstanding. Her knowledge — both the depth and the breadth of it — is on full display in these debate settings.

So, why is she in the loser column? Because she did nothing in the debate to slow the momentum that Sanders is building in Iowa and New Hampshire. Aside from guns, where Clinton scored a clean win against Sanders, she was unable to effectively cast him as a pie-in-the-sky idealist and herself as the only person who could truly fight for — and win on — Democratic priorities.

Time and again, she was boxed into defending a status quo that the American public — Democrats and Republicans alike — is dissatisfied with.

The Clinton-as-cautious-pragmatist vs. Sanders-as-idealist-fighter is not a good dynamic for the former secretary of state.

COMMENT:  Possibly true, but I get the sense that Hillary's main problems are that she's stale, been around too long, and has a poor reputation for integrity. 

But I wonder, at this point, what will really matter.  As we've noted, voting starts two weeks from now in Iowa.  If Sanders pulls it out, it's a blow to Hillary.  It's almost a foregone conclusion that Sanders will win New Hampshire, a week later, as he's from a neighboring state and is well known and popular in the region.

The make-or-break for both Sanders and Hillary will be South Carolina, on February 27th.  South Carolina has a large black constituency.  If Sanders can penetrate that pro-Clinton group, that will be real news.  If Hillary can soundly defeat Sanders in South Carolina, she'll be back in the saddle. 

Remember that, despite all the talk of a Sanders surge, Hillary is still well ahead of Bernie in national polls.  Her problems may turn out to be less with Sanders than with the FBI.

January 18, 2016       Permalink